Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 11 Sep 2012 20:17

24Hr streaming internet radio station for Ramcharitmanas (Ramayana of Goswami Tulsidas)

http://myradiostream.com/ramcharitmanas

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Sep 2012 20:48

If you hear the detailed commentaries on Mahabharat, Yudhisthir comes out as quite a strong person.Places where he shines: Virata parva end in the raybharam episodes, the slaying of Shalya, the end of the war where he sends Krishna to console Gandhari so on.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 12 Sep 2012 22:28

also, since we are having this discussion, perhaps those who are having khujli should also point out some examples where the non-brahmin Hindu also used similar tactics to justify collaborating with foreigners...there are several instances where this did happen, and often the ideological support to these actions lay in the same arguments that were ingeniously formulated by the "brahmin". so yeah, it's not that the supposedly "above political ideology"-arguments were used only by "brahmins". others borrowed from it too. the famous example of prominent "kshatriya" scoffing off a fellow Bharatiya, a fellow Hindu, as not worth his daughter's hand, while similar protestations were not displayed while giving said hand to the Muslims mlecchas...is a very apt example. and there are many more like that.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 02:50

ramana wrote:If you hear the detailed commentaries on Mahabharat, Yudhisthir comes out as quite a strong person.Places where he shines: Virata parva end in the raybharam episodes, the slaying of Shalya, the end of the war where he sends Krishna to console Gandhari so on.

Ramana,

May be you meant this thread as referring to thread on 'epics' on OIT thread.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Sep 2012 03:47

Yes Nilesh. This way there is a wide audience.

My specific question is why is Arundhati walking before Vasishta considered an ill omen of the coming Kali yuga? I thought Arundhati is the last faint star in the sapata rishsis, pointed out by the purohit at weddings as a mark of fidelity.

As the wife of Vashista is she supposed to follow and not lead?

How many times in antiquity this astronomical event could have happened?

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 04:02

ramana wrote:Yes Nilesh. This way there is a wide audience.

My specific question is why is Arundhati walking before Vasishta considered an ill omen of the coming Kali yuga? I thought Arundhati is the last faint star in the sapata rishsis, pointed out by the purohit at weddings as a mark of fidelity.

As the wife of Vashista is she supposed to follow and not lead?

How many times in antiquity this astronomical event could have happened?

Ramana,
Arudhati walking ahead of Vasistha, was stated as ill omen, in the context of impending MBH war, not Kaliyuga.
As the wife Vasistha (and Pativrata and all that) she supposed to follow and not lead, but as seen in the sky at the time of MBH war, she was walking ahead of Vasistha. I employed that reference in determing, astronmically (not astrologically) the plausible time interval of MBH war, and thus Mahabharata.

Astronomically speaking, This event - i.e. Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha- occured ONLY ONCE in the past. This occured over a period of time - what I called -The Epoch of Arundhati' from 11091 BC thorugh 4508 BC. Before 11091 BC, Arundhati never walked ahead of Vasistha, so if we have to go by this observation, Mahabharata did not happen before 11091 BC.

Of course the more important and exciting part is our ability to state that Mahabharata DID NOT happen after 4508 BC. That falsifies 121 out of ~125 proposed dates for the timing of Mahabharata War.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Sep 2012 04:30

So all those ~3100BC-1177BC dates are all humbug.

has anyone contacted Pradip Bhattacharya who writes in boloji?

He is a enthusiast of antiquity, Mahabaharata and is quite open minded.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 05:47

ramana wrote:So all those ~3100BC-1177BC dates are all humbug.

has anyone contacted Pradip Bhattacharya who writes in boloji?

He is a enthusiast of antiquity, Mahabaharata and is quite open minded.

No reference from Mahabharata text leads us to the time interval of 3100 BC and after. Well there is that reference of Magha Shudda 8 (or Magha Shuddh 4 or Maghan Vadya 4) as day of Bhishma Nirvana and time of winter solstice which would cover entire 3100 BC - 1177 BC (I am simply quoting what you wrote above for time interval) but then there are 23 other references that go against this one refernce of Magha, and while all other 23 can be explained for 5561 BC, none of them can be explained/validated/corrobrated for 3100-1177 BC time frame.

There are many non-Mahabharata references (including basis used by calendars from Varanasi to Ujjaan to south India to Thailand which point to 3102 BC as starting point and thus this year has some basis as beginning of Kaliyuga.

On the other hand, all Mahabharata says is that the War occured during Dwapara or during sandhi period between Dwapara and Kali. MBH text has nothing to say on beginning of Kaliyuga in terms of specific year.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Sep 2012 08:31

Nilesh,
I get the part that Arundhati epoch is from 11091 to 4508 BC. Wouldnt that be gradual?What sudden movement or sight made Vyasa remark?

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 08:59

ramana wrote:Nilesh,
I get the part that Arundhati epoch is from 11091 to 4508 BC. Wouldnt that be gradual?What sudden movement or sight made Vyasa remark?

The movement is very gradual indeed. Vyasa is simply remarking everything that he is observing (and frankly continued to observe past the war.. remember, while he held conversation with Dhritarashtra on the eve of the war, he wrote MBH itself some 18 years after the War), as omens, in the context of MBH War. the suddeness for making these remarks is driven by impending war, not due to unique situation of Arundhati/Vasistha. We are lucky in that such rare/falsifiable observation was captured. This may not be intentional (or could be.. see below).

Possibly as a way of recording the time of MBH war. Whether he intended this (time keeping/record) or not, I could, by luck, able to test those observation to define plausbile timing of MBH War.

Thus He mentions eclipses, oblique motions of Mars and Jupiter, retrograde motions of Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and Venus, positions of various planets on different days of the war, positions and phases of the moon.. all standard and generic stuff, along with relative position of Arundhati and Vasistha. While many of these planetary positions (individually) get repeated every few years (Saturn. every ~30 years, Jupiter -every 12 years.. and so on), or positions and phases of moon every year, Arundhati ahead of Vasishta never happened before 11091 BC and after 4508 BC.

Interestingly, Duration of Bhishma on 'bed of arrows' (98 days as opposed to loosely held belief of 58 days ...based on one observation of MBH Text) also led me to a time interval of 6500 BC-3500 BC (consevatively broad.. real interval is more like 6000 BC -4000 BC) for the plausibel timing of Mahabharata. The number of observations in support of 98 days vs. 58 days stands at 21:1

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Sep 2012 10:17

Nilesh Oak ji,

is it possible to explain the discrepancy between the unconventional reading of the Aihole inscription (5376 BCE) and your estimate of 5561 BCE? Can the time duration between bridged? Could one offer a hypothesis why the Aihole inscription did not say 5561 BCE?

I am bringing this up, because if one has a valid explanation, perhaps it would be easier to convince people to accept 5561 BCE instead of 3138 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 11:01

RajeshA ji,

Interpretation of Ahiole inscription is based on numerous layers of assumptions.
(1) Jain temple..If you read Jain literature, although based on Vedic literature as basis for history (Ikshvaku, Rishabh, etc.) added their own twists, many areas that included 'durations/time passed'.

(2) Interpretation also requires assumption of begining of Kali Yuga. I am not against 3102 BC as beginning of Kali Yuga.

(3) Not all researchers would necessarily agree with Vartak interpretation. Vartak was interpreting 'it' in the context of 6th millennium for MBH war, based on other powerful evidence. He has shown that his interpretation of 'Ahiole inscription' is as plausible as any other. That is an accomplishment. However, Vartak did not jump and declared, "Look, MBH war happened in 5376 BC! This has to do with 'degree of corrboration' or 'degree of falsifiability'. In other words, this evidence (inscription), in principle, is capable of providing additional support to a 'claim' that is based on much stronger evidence. However by itself it may not amount to much...since multiple interpreations are possible.

(4) One must realize that all observations (and especially their interpretations) are made in the context of a theory aka prejudice. Darwin had recognized this fact long ago when he said, "It is amzing that people don't realize that all observations/interpretations are in the context of falsifying or corroborating a certain theory". He did not use those exact words but the essence was on those lines.

(5) e..g My theory was that Vyasa is saying something that is not the case today (2000 AD) and I don't see a reason for him to lie on such trivial matter (Arundhati).. so let's say the situation did exist as he described it and find out if it is possible to test. Vartak is doing something similar

(6) Consider biases of those who provided infomation for inscription on the temple wall. e.g. Aren't we saying that MBH war happened 5000 years ago? how long are we saying it? since 16th century?, 17?, 18?, 19?, 20?, 21St?.. 400-500 years have gone by and we may still be using generic '5000 years ago'. This sort of error may lead to gap of few hundred years.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 11:26

RajeshA wrote:I am bringing this up, because if one has a valid explanation, perhaps it would be easier to convince people to accept 5561 BCE instead of 3138 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War!

My project# 4 (after Ramayana and one more in between) is to do just that, i.e. Can 'Truth' be measured, compared and analyzed?

For now, anyone sticking to 3138 BC (or 3067 BC, 3143 BC, 1952 BC, ....basically anything after 4508 BC), one may ask

(1) How do you explain astronomy observation of Arundhati/Vasistha.. Bhishma 2:32 for the year 3138 BC
(2) Can you show time interval of >92 days (conservative figure, real figurre being 98) between Fall of Bhishma on 10th day of War and Bhishma Nirvana on the day of Winter solstice (Uttarayana) for 3138 or any year +/- 100 years.
(3) How about Jupiter and Saturn near Vishakha durign 3138 BC +/- 2 years
(4) show Mars going vakri near Magha and also near Jyeshtha/Anuradha and Jupiter going vakri near Shravana
(5) Show Mars becoming steady between Chitra and Swati
(6) Show Venus making 'parikrama' near Purva Bhadrapada aroudn this 3138 BC

and many more.

I will conclude with Karl Popper quote, "Theories are never verified... they are only corroborated or falsified"

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 13 Sep 2012 11:39

ramana wrote:Yes Nilesh. This way there is a wide audience.

My specific question is why is Arundhati walking before Vasishta considered an ill omen of the coming Kali yuga? I thought Arundhati is the last faint star in the sapata rishsis, pointed out by the purohit at weddings as a mark of fidelity.

As the wife of Vashista is she supposed to follow and not lead?

How many times in antiquity this astronomical event could have happened?

Ramana garu,
According to Chaganti Koteshwara Rao(Sampoorna Ramayana):
Husband leads in auspicious events(eg: marriage), while wife leads in inauspicious events(eg: condolence ceremony).

I think the date of Kurukshetra war is reached traditionally through a combination of MB and Bhagavata Purana(and other puranas).

-----
RajeshA ji,
I wanted to make a point on OIT thread but restrained. I hope you take it in positive way.

I appreciate the idea of OIT(Out of India Theory) as a counter to AIT. But, I think the approach that is being used in the thread is going in the wrong direction.

Essentially, the primary axiom(assumption) of AIT has been bought hook, line and sinker by the proponents of OIT, which is: Vedas can be reliably dated.

Of course, that axiom(assumption) of AIT is the first attack on Hinduism. By accepting that axiom, OIT has fallen for the trap that AIT has set. I think Dubey ji was arguing against accepting this axiom by saying that there is no way to reliably date Vedas when no other material of the period exists i.e. there is no reference point based on which one can make judgements on the origin or date of Vedas. The only thing we know is that Vedas are ancient. Thats all.

Why Vedas, even other Hindu texts are difficult to reliably date. The cunning of AIT is that it sets out to date what is not datable(due to lack of sufficient independent material apart from the texts themselves). The only other source that gives info on these texts is 'traditions'. Of course, the Indic traditions have been summarily discarded by the AIT. Now, OIT is going in the same direction.

Essentially, the present form of OIT(like AIT) is only going to end up contradicting the claims of Hinduism(and other Indic religions). How is it going to be beneficial to Hinduism(or other Indic religion)?

What I am saying is that the present form of OIT is based on the same approach as AIT and therefore, is a threat to Hinduism and Indic religions.

I understand that the aim of OIT is to refute AIT and restore pride of place for India(by suitable narrative). But, if the present form of OIT(even if it is successful) will only harm not benefit. It is like a patient taking poison thinking that it is a medicine. The worst part is that he is killing himself by his own hands. Similarly, the very same axioms that are inimical to Hinduism are again being given intellectual sheen under a misguided but noble indigenous endeavor.

Please note that I am not criticising the idea of OIT(Out of India Theory). I am only saying that method being used to establish it is not beneficial to Indians.

Ultimately, it is Hindus who have to live with Vedas(and other Puranas). If they are deconstructed on the axioms of AIT(which are now adopted by OIT), it is not helpful to Hindus or Hinsduism(or even other Indic religions). Because, indirectly it achieves the purpose of AIT. The primary purpose of AIT was to make Indians(specially Hindus) look at their texts as nothing more than crude historical narratives(which were again and again revised by later hands). This portrayal makes one's faith in Hinduism weak. The other gains of AIT(for the colonials) were secondary.

By accepting the portrayal of Indian texts, OIT will do the same damage. And it is only us who care about these texts. Others will have eyes for these texts only as long as it serves their narratives. Lets say you succeed in proving OIT by 'dating' Vedas and other Puranas(along with other Indic texts). The neo-colonial intellectuals will simply ignore Vedas(along with other Indic texts). They will just move on to some other item to base their theories on. But, Hindus cannot move to some other item, can they? So, Vedas(or Puranas or Indic texts in general) are useful to neo-colonials only as long as they can be spinned to present their narratives. If that is not possible, they will not waste one second in brushing them under carpet.

So, its a double blow to base OIT on axioms of AIT(in terms of its views on Indic texts).
a) It furthers the essential purpose of AIT which is to weaken the faith(and respect) of Hindu(or Indian) in Hinduism(Indic religions/past).
b) Indic texts will be ignored by others if and when they stop serving their interests and narratives.

So, what is the solution?

Should OIT be discarded?
Absolutely not.

But OIT must do to European/X-ian and Middle-eastern/Islamic, what AIT has attempted to do to India/Hindu.
Notice, that AIT depends on spinning Vedas and Puranas to establish itself. It does not depend on Greek or Roman accounts(even if they are the reference point to determine the axioms of AIT). This is a very very important point.

The primary lesson from the above is that you deconstruct the culture, civilization, icons and texts of your target/victim. You take your own culture, civilization, icons and texts as axioms(or self-proved).
You subject their texts and beliefs to scrutiny and base OIT on what they hold dear. Our own must be above criticism. Our scriptures have worked for us(whether they are true or imaginary is beside the point) for many millenia. India is the oldest surviving civilization. So, there must be some merit in these texts that they were able to inspire a civilization that survived longer than anyone else, no? Then, why change them into newer(and untested) narratives? In fact, that is precisely the aim of AIT, to change our successful narrative by spinning it into newer interpretations.

So, the best thing to do would be to simply refute the AIT. And attack its primary axiom that Indian texts(specially Vedas) can be reliably dated.

Thew next point is to take up their texts and prove that they were exported from India.

There is already such research. I'll give an example:

As you all are aware, there is a so-called synoptic problem. Matthew, Mark and Luke have a lot in common. But there are some differences. The synoptic problem has to do with the mutual relationship between the three Gospels. It is discussed in any modern introduction to the NT. Augustine held that Mark depended on Matthew, and Luke on Matthew and Mark. A modern theory saying that Mark was the first evangelist, and that Matthew and Luke depended not only on Mark but also on a source, now termed Q(uelle), but no longer available, has found fairly general (but not universal) acceptance. The hypothesis of Q, however, cannot account for what Q actually looked like, who made it, its language, what ever became of Q etc., and it fails to explain the origin of Mark.

The CLT has a simple answer to the Q problem. Q, understood as the source not only of Matthew, Mark and Luke, but even of John and the other writings of the NT, can, according to CLT, be defined in terms of the Buddhist sources in Sanskrit. These texts are, fortunately, still available to scholars.

Unfortunately, not all of them have been translated into modern languages. The main Buddhist sources are Mûlasarvâstivâdavinaya (MSV) and the Saddharmapundarîka (SDP). The Sukhâvatîvyûha is the source of Luke 10:17. The first words of Jesus are from the Prajnâpâramitâ. There are a few other Buddhist sources, and of course the numerous quotations from the Old Testament, but the main sources are, without any shadow of doubt, the MSV (parts of which, again, prove more important than others), and the SDP. The SDP is available in modern translations.

It is in this general sense that the CLT claims that Q = MSV+SDP.

http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/

The above research by Christian Lindtner is an excellent place to start OIT. The essential theory is that NT is the work of cypto-Buddhist missionaries based on buddhist texts in Sanskrit. Essentially, whole of NT is a fiction based on Sanskrith originals. The NT is word to word pirate copy of Sanskrith works. The best part is that the research is quite solid and is being ignored by the foreign media and intellectuals for obvious reasons. Indians should support such research. If this research can brought into popular domain, it will be a great intellectual/cultural coup for India.

The reason I am addressing you in particular is that I admire your dynamic and dedicated style. I think it would be great if you take up this approach to OIT rather than to accept the claims of AIT(to base OIT on) which are inherently inimical to Hinduism and Indic culture.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Sep 2012 13:52

johnnyG ji,

I'll try responding to your post in parts.

In the OIT thread I went to considerable length to try to answer that question. Why? Because I am very much aware what the Vedas mean to the Hindus, to us. It has been my attempt to create a narrative which allows the two worlds to exist side by side.

Leaving AIT vs OIT aside for the moment, and just looking at the nature of the Vedas, it is abundantly clear that

a) One can read the Vedas in Sanskrit, and we in India also have a tradition of associating the proper nouns one reads in the Vedas with concrete objects, places and people. As such even if one may not understand the semantics of the Vedas when read as a Sanskrit text completely, it does not negate a level of comprehensibility of the text, the lack of complete understanding being ascribable to poetry and experience context of the rishis.

So we get two views here:
a) Vedas are comprehensible as a Sanskrit text, and from that comprehension as well as from various supplementary literature like the AnukramaNis we can aver authorship, a certain geography, and sociological and historical context, and thus speculate on dates.

b) Vedas are basically sounds which are eternal and apaurasheya and can only be chanted.

Now the problem is that the situation (a) is a reality which cannot be reverted. One cannot revert comprehensibility. It does not matter who looks at the Vedas, whether a proponent of AIT, OIT, or someone else. Comprehensibility is simply there.

Thus (a) and (b) come into a conflict, if the assertion of (b) is incomprehensibility. As long as (b) retains that claim of incomprehensibility, (b) would continue to weaken in credibility. So as far as I see it, it is important that (b) does not see itself as a negation of (a). If (b) frees itself from the notion that it has to stand in opposition to (a), then anything that happens to (a) would not in the least affect (b). And that is exactly what we wish for in (b), that that axiom does not weaken.

Comprehensibility of the Vedas should never weaken the claim of the Vedas that it is both incomprehensible and authorless. The only way I see to ensure these seemingly opposing views is for a sharp horizontal split in the Vedas, where (a) is valid for the superficial layer of Sanskritic semantic and (b) continues to hold validity for a deeper layer of non-Sanskritic phonetic-semantic.

For this we need to develop a consistent and unfalsifiable narrative as to how these two layers are split, and why both layers can coexist.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Sep 2012 17:22

johnnyG ji,

on Christian Lindtner's work, I also made a post earlier.

The reason I think the same strategy would not work is because when we take on NT, we are taking them on their turf. It is our invasion on something they hold dear, and we have the liberty to throw a lot of speculation and theories onto them or to propagate them and make them take a stand on it!

As far as AIT is concerned, it is they who are doing the invasion, screwing up our history, etc.

So in NT case, they would have to construct a defense and in case of AIT, we would have to show that there is no place for AIT to infringe our space, and thus to block all points of incursion including using Rigveda.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 18:02

3138 BC

Whoever proposed 3138 BC (Kota Venkatachalam, but there were many others who proposed the same year or another year in the viscinity of 3138 BC...e.g. 3137 BC, 3139 BC, 3143 BC...etc.) were working from a decent baseline....

Kaliyuga began at 3102 BC (traditional belief, may be corroborated based on basis used for calendars)
Krishna Passed away - 36 years after the War (Mahabharata text)
Kaliyuga began when Krishna passed away. (Literal interpreation of Bhagavata purana text)

Therefore Time of Mahabharata War = 3102 + 36 = 3138 BC

They were justified in this assumption, even though on a weak footing...

However, after this initial step, instead of testing this date against the internal evidence of MBH text, what these researchers did is analogus to drawing a line through scatter plot (MBH evidence of various kind) and only focused on justifying the year 3138 BC with the help of few data points that did seem to (and being excited about) fall on that straight line, while completely ignoring significant pile of other MBH evidence/data points that did not fit on the straight line.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Sep 2012 18:23

Nilesh Oak ji,

I think there are two ways of approaching any dating.
a) Best Fit Method - which line goes through the most or through the most relevant scatter blot points!

b) Logical Method - when one chooses a certain line, then one tries to discount the other scatter blot points logically. One needs to give a good theory why the other point may be wrong. Thus one reduces the number of valid scatter blot points, hopefully onto to those through which the line runs.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 18:36

RajeshA wrote:Nilesh Oak ji,

I think there are two ways of approaching any dating.
a) Best Fit Method - which line goes through the most or through the most relevant scatter blot points!

b) Logical Method - when one chooses a certain line, then one tries to discount the other scatter blot points logically. One needs to give a good theory why the other point may be wrong. Thus one reduces the number of valid scatter blot points, hopefully onto to those through which the line runs.

There are more than two ways of approaching any dating.

(c) the best fit may not be a line , but a curve and even a higher ordern polynomial at that.
(d) Data on the scatter plot is not random and thus it may be doctored, in which case, problem is further back .. before one gets to curve fitting
(e) data from different sources is piled on the same plot. Must segment into rational subgroups before attempting curve fitting
(f) Data may be from same source but needs to be sorted by degree of falsifiability. Each data point is not same in its ability to corroborate or falsify and this ability also changes with what one is trying to answer/solve etc.
(g) Falsifying data point(s) is vastly superior to that of corroborating data point(s). One can talk of relative importance of this and 'proof is in the pudding' but quantifying such evidence is difficult, if not impossible.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 18:43

a) Best Fit Method - which line goes through the most or through the most relevant scatter blot points!

In this case, to a truth seeker, the points not fallling on the best fit line/curve are of more value than those that did fall on the line. Of course, both are important.

b) Logical Method - when one chooses a certain line, then one tries to discount the other scatter blot points logically. One needs to give a good theory why the other point may be wrong. Thus one reduces the number of valid scatter blot points, hopefully onto to those through which the line runs.

Agree. And one should openly invite criticism. Fortunately, process of science is such that if an individual who puts forward a theory/proposal, fails to criticize it himself, others will do it for him.

member_23686 · Post by **member_23686** » 13 Sep 2012 18:44

johneeG wrote:India is the oldest surviving civilization. So, there must be some merit in these texts that they were able to inspire a civilization that survived longer than anyone else, no? Then, why change them into newer(and untested) narratives? In fact, that is precisely the aim of AIT, to change our successful narrative by spinning it into newer interpretations.

So, the best thing to do would be to simply refute the AIT. And attack its primary axiom that Indian texts(specially Vedas) can be reliably dated.

Thew next point is to take up their texts and prove that they were exported from India.

johneeG ji, This is being done in OIT thread onlee.... by none other than RajeshA ji

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1299592

This is a thread he created to invade norse mythology

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=6416

The thread, however, is dormant presently.

There was an awesome comment by RajeshA ji in OIT thread where he ripped apart entire greek civilization and made it just an ancient Bhartiya colony. I am trying to find it and x post it here.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 19:08

Post of Arjun ji from OIT thread is worth resposting here..

Arjun wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:Don't forget to mention that in the case of past events, the only admissible means of falsification (of the 6 available "pramanas") is testimony (shabda).
Good observation. Even if one goes by the western definition of 'historical method' (see wiki for this) - primary sources and deduction are the key sources required to be considered for valid historiography.

Another excerpt from wiki page on 'Historical Method':
Core principles

The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):[1]

- Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
- Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
- The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
- A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.
- If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
- The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
- If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

member_23686 · Post by **member_23686** » 13 Sep 2012 20:26

Finally

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1299507

Against the AIT/AMT there are actually two narratives that are pitted - Autochthonous Origin (Indigenist) of Indo-Aryans and the Out-of-India Theory (OIT).

In OIT, one needs to look for a narrative which shows that the archaeological, linguistic and mythological reality is better explainable by the OIT than by the AIT.

One very good OIT proposal is from Shrikant Talageri. He speaks of some tribes of the Lunar Dynasty and proposes:

PUrus were the Vedic Aryans and they stayed in India.
Anus were the Iranians and they shifted to the West, from South of the Caspian Sea.
Druhyus were the ones who migrated to Europe from North of the Caspian Sea.

Anu Tribes were

PRthus or PArthavas (VII.83.1): Parthians.
ParSus or ParSavas (VII.83.1): Persians.
Pakthas (VII.18.7): Pakhtoons.
BhalAnas (VII.18.7): Baluchis.
Sivas (VII.18.7): Khivas.
ViSANins (VII.18.7): Pishachas (Dards).
Madras: (not named in the Rigveda,): Medes.
Simyus (VII.18.5): Sarmatians (Avesta = Sairimas) > Albanians.
Alinas (VII.18.7): Alans. > Greeks
BhRgus (VII.18.6): Phrygians > Armenians.

So this got me thinking. If one has to prove Talageri's Out-of-India Migration Theory, then one may have to show something which goes against AIT, something like the Southern Route taken by the migrants on their way to Europe.

If Talageri is correct, and in the Anu confederacy, along with ParSus, also Alinas took part in the Battle of the Ten Kings, this means the Hellenes (Alinas) and ParSus (Persians) were once together and then separated.

So the Alinas went their way to Greece. They could be the Mycenaeans. I don't know. And they took the Southern Route, South of Caspian Sea.

Also we know that Greeks and Persians have had a long and bitter rivalry. That means at some point in time the Hellenes (Alinas) and the ParSus, etc. had a fallout with each other. This fallout should have been recorded somewhere, and may be there are records of this fallout. These are the premises.

From my superficial knowledge of Greek mythology, I have come up with a speculative theory. Recorded but coded history DOES have this testimony. It is in the cosmogony of the Greeks.

There must have been some reason why the Alinas on the one hand and the other dominant Anu tribes on the other had a fallout. The reason could be political or it could also be some religious difference. This difference must have cropped up sometime later on after the Battle of the Ten Kings.

If it was religious, then it must have been due to some revolutionary change that someone wanted to introduce and either the Alinas or the other dominant Anus were not happy with it. And indeed one of the most prominent revolutions among the Anus (Anava) was Zarathustra and his new religion - Zoroastrianism. Not everybody would have been happy, leaving the old ways and taking on the new, giving rise to serious theological differences.

I believe the Alinas were one of the tribes who did not like what Zarathustra was proposing, and they decided to keep their old ways. One can only speculate what was something that the Alinas were simply not prepared to accept.

a) And if I may speculate, I believe it was the funeral ceremony. Among the Vedic Aryans (PUrus) and the other tribes, the standard was cremation. The corpse was burned and the spirit was freed by Agni. But Zarathustra in his eagerness to go a different way and to make big changes in the ritual, required that dead bodies be eaten by eagles and vultures. He built Dakhma Towers, called Cheel Ghars in Hindi, where bodies were placed and were allowed to be eaten by eagles and vultures and other birds and after a few months or years the bones were collected and thrown in an ossuary, a pit.

Now turning to Greek mythology we learn that Prometheus rebelled against Zeus and brought fire to the humans after Zeus had hidden it from man, so as punishment Prometheus was chained to a rock in Caucasus* for an eternity and everyday an eagle would come and eat his liver, which would regenerate during the night.

So some points
- man already possessed fire
- Zeus hid fire from man
- Prometheus brought it back to man

Now what is the meaning of this tale? Can someone really hide or ban fire when man already knows how to use it? So obviously the talk is of some fire ritual. Now the Iranians were considered as the ones who most identified themselves with fire - with the deity Agni. They had introduced the fire yasna (yagna) under the Bhrgus and it received acceptance from other tribes as well. The PUrus too had adopted it, perhaps from a time, when the tribes had not yet differentiated. The other fire ritual was the cremation (antim sanskar).

This is the fire ritual we speak. When Zarathustra (here associated with Zeus) banned the fire ritual, some Prometheus (Param Deva) rebelled and allowed the Alinas to continue with their cremation ceremonies, much in the same way the tribes did earlier.

In addition to giving humankind fire, Prometheus claims to have taught the humans the arts of civilization, such as writing, mathematics, agriculture, medicine, and science.

So obviously the Alinas considered cremation as an inseparable part of their civilization, they could no forego.

We see the Hellenes, the Greeks later on continuing with the cremation ceremony. In popular culture, in the movie "Troy" we see how cremations were conducted on Hector and the other fallen heroes.

So the Alinas decided to continue with the tradition of the Vedic Aryans, the PUrus, and thus separating themselves theologically from the other Anavas, who decided to adopt Zoroastrianism, and the Dakhmas.

2) Talageri mentions that that Alinas were an Anu tribe which were found in the northwestern periphery of Iran.

Also the "Daiva Inscription" of Xerxes I of Persia found near Persepolis (484 BC) tells about a revolt by "daiva worshippers" in West Iran, which he quelled. These were people who were still following the old religion.

So one can say that to the West of Xerxes Persian Empire, there were still many daiva worshippers, who still followed the old way, similar to the rituals of Vedic Aryans.

Who were these "daiva worshippers"?

They could well be the Alinas, or some other Anu tribe.

3) The Mycenaeans talk of a "Dorian invasion" from the North. Considering that the Hellenes (Alinas) were from the Anu tribe in our model, and migrated to Greece from South of Caspian Sea, they would still have the memory of the third tribe of the Lunar Dynasty - the Druhyus.

So could the Alinas have come across the Druhyus a long way from their initial common home (North and Northwest India) in Greece.

There is some similarity in sound between Druhyus and Dorians.

4) Then there is the older myth of how Ouranos (Varuna) was overthrown by his son Chronos (Kaal), which too was overthrown by Zeus.

Varuna was an Asura (Ahura) and besides in Rigveda by the Vedic Aryans also worshiped by the Anus. So the myth among the Hellenes about an overthrow of Varuna by Zeus in due time (Chronos) is recorded.

This can indeed mean an overthrow of the old guard, where the ParSus (dominant Anu sub-tribe) used to decide the for the Alinas (another Anu sub-tribe).

Here Zeus takes over ultimately, with time (Chronos, Kaal) degrading the power of Ouranos (Varuna). Zeus is here endowed with the power of lightening and thunder. That is Zeus here embodies both "Dyaus Pitr" as well as "Indra".

In fact Greek Cosmogony talks of the castration of Ouranos by Chronos, perhaps fully taking away his power. This could again refer to Alinas (Hellenes) freeing themselves from the dominance of the ParSus (Persians).

---------------

What all this shows is that the Hellenes (Greeks) and the Persians were earlier connected and even used to see themselves as one tribe, and after political and theological differences, the Hellenes finally detached themselves from the other Anus and settled in Greece using the Southern route, South of the Caspian Sea as the route of migration.

It also shows that whereas Iranians under Zarathustra changed directions and turned against the earlier theology they used to share with the Vedic Aryans, the PUrus, the Alinas (Hellenes) continued to uphold the rituals of Veda, especially the cremation of the dead.

Modern Greeks are thus today a mixture of Alinas (Hellenes) and Druhyus (Dorians).

---------------

Disclaimer: As I said, just some speculation. Take it for what it is. I don't have any evidence beyond what I have said here.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Sep 2012 21:11

http://www.castinbronzecreative.com/index.php

The process of making Devata murtis. Saving it for future members/readers.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Sep 2012 23:15

It would have taken 1000 years to catch up to the current sea levels from the 13K-12K year back floods engulfing all coastal lines all over the world. So, about those 1000 years time, plus going by various narration we could deduce that Saraswati drying happened after 1000 years of flooding just because of one reason: if one check the geo coordinates I posted earlier, the saraswati canyons under the ocean is still predominantly showing, and as we get closer to delta and land-sea merger, one could sea another set of 1000s of years of soil erosion but not fallen deep into the ocean, meaning the canyons remains as is during the flooded periods.

So, the erosion is caused by continuous giant saraswati flows for quite some time, I would say at least couple or more thousands -- say anywhere between 10K year back to 6k year back - 4000 years of erosion would be plausible.

And then some 4K-6k years back the ever rainy climate weathered away, and leaving to only current levels of monsoon. So, as we go, we could continuously see similar geographic changes for other rivers that are driven by rain more so than mountain originated.

Some dates about Saraswati landing to Earth, stories about Brahma etc, could be related to various events, and we could narrow down on time from them.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 13 Sep 2012 23:36

SaiK wrote: if one check the geo coordinates I posted earlier, the saraswati canyons under the ocean is still predominantly showing, and as we get closer to delta and land-sea merger, one could sea another set of 1000s of years of soil erosion but not fallen deep into the ocean, meaning the canyons remains as is during the flooded periods.

Are you referring to undersea pattern at 23 N and 67 E, in Google Earth?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Sep 2012 23:46

YUP!.. not just a pattern, it is a submarine canyon!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 00:11

SaiK wrote:YUP!.. not just a pattern, it is a submarine canyon!

Any idea whey Amazon has not created such 'submarine Canyon?

I see distinct one for Ganga, also Congo.

Here is list of rivers by their Discharge..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ri ... _discharge

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Sep 2012 01:16

Nilesh,
As you calculated Arundhati 'walked' before Vashista in the period 11091 BC to 4508 BC.

Suppose for argument sake, Vyasa in 31xx BC is recalling the earlier event and predciting same will happen due to the pralaya/disorder from the great war? But at same time he would also know there were no great calamities that happened in the above period due to the walking ahead if he was after that epoch?
I fast read your book. Is there a visual of the sapta rishis and location of Arundhati? and how that would look due to the Earth's rotation about the axis?

I think you did a great job of the calculations and gathering the data scattered all over the many locations.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Sep 2012 01:31

1. We have no clue what was the discharge of Saraswati.
2. Amazon does have one at 3.601142,-48.099976
3. Perhaps Saraswati would have 10 times the discharge of Amazon. [look at the size during/after floods from the current destruction if one would put that way, the breadth starts from Karachi to all the way to Kori creek]. [after flood /ocean rise - the terrain there made the floods have more spread.. hence exactly at the center from where the Saraswati delta was, one could see the spread as water found no way to go into the ocean as the ocean itself was raising -- backwaters then!]
4. Saraswati would have been 10-50 times mightier than Amazon.
5. Terrain and river depth at mouth of amazon/delta also matters.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 02:37

ramana wrote:Nilesh,
As you calculated Arundhati 'walked' before Vashista in the period 11091 BC to 4508 BC.

Suppose for argument sake, Vyasa in 31xx BC is recalling the earlier event and predciting same will happen due to the pralaya/disorder from the great war? But at same time he would also know there were no great calamities that happened in the above period due to the walking ahead if he was after that epoch?
I fast read your book. Is there a visual of the sapta rishis and location of Arundhati? and how that would look due to the Earth's rotation about the axis?

I think you did a great job of the calculations and gathering the data scattered all over the many locations.

Ramana,

Here are two links (youtube)

how Arudhanti/Vasistha would have looked walking in the sky in 2012 AD (This year)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKH1pr5H0VA

how Arudhanti/Vasistha would have looked walking in the sky in 5561 BC (I made this as book trailer. Do look at Arundhati and Vasistha in the background).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggWUFU99UV0

Let me know what you think. Simulations are generated using Voyager 4.5

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Sep 2012 03:58

The simulations look good. I would have shown all the seven stars with Arundhati as of present time.
Next video I would show the situation in 11091 BC
next after that the situation in 5561 or 4508BC.
Great job.
So basically the scholars did not have real knowledge of astronomy and orbital mechanics and dismissed the facts as it did not fit their understanding.

Would the meaning of "Dhruv" as the new Pole star in Srimad Bhagavatam also be similar observation?

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 06:07

The simulations look good. I would have shown all the seven stars with Arundhati as of present time.
Next video I would show the situation in 11091 BC
next after that the situation in 5561 or 4508BC.

Ramana,

I did not show all 7 saptarshi because I had to maginfiy Arundhati/Vasisthta cluster in order to show separation between them and show who is walking ahead of who. When I magnify to desired level, as you saw in simuation, all other stars or Saptarshi are far away.

Great job.

Thank you.

So basically the scholars did not have real knowledge of astronomy and orbital mechanics and dismissed the facts as it did not fit their understanding.

We must separate scholars in 2 groups,
First, who acknowledge this astronomy observation and attempted to test/interpret in various ways.. C V Vaidya, P V Vartak, P V Kane, R N Iyengar. Kudos to them.
On the other hand, all other researchers simply IGNORED this obeservation as if it did NOT exist.

Would the meaning of "Dhruv" as the new Pole star in Srimad Bhagavatam also be similar observation?

That is a great question. The answer is not straighforward. This is because which star is Dhruv, depends on 'when' the observation was made. I have done lot of research.. specifically based on Srimad Bhagavatam.. but it has to wait until I complete my work on Ramayana + few other works.
It will be a while before I start addressing Purana references and still it will remain speculative.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 06:18

Ramana,
My first impromptu experimental film made using flipcam- explaining Why Arundhati appeared to walk ahead of Vasistha. Unedited -as is, no retake..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icMT9e617YY

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 14 Sep 2012 09:21

Nilesh Oak wrote:
ramana wrote:So all those ~3100BC-1177BC dates are all humbug.

has anyone contacted Pradip Bhattacharya who writes in boloji?

He is a enthusiast of antiquity, Mahabaharata and is quite open minded.
No reference from Mahabharata text leads us to the time interval of 3100 BC and after. Well there is that reference of Magha Shudda 8 (or Magha Shuddh 4 or Maghan Vadya 4) as day of Bhishma Nirvana and time of winter solstice which would cover entire 3100 BC - 1177 BC (I am simply quoting what you wrote above for time interval) but then there are 23 other references that go against this one refernce of Magha, and while all other 23 can be explained for 5561 BC, none of them can be explained/validated/corrobrated for 3100-1177 BC time frame.

There are many non-Mahabharata references (including basis used by calendars from Varanasi to Ujjaan to south India to Thailand which point to 3102 BC as starting point and thus this year has some basis as beginning of Kaliyuga.

On the other hand, all Mahabharata says is that the War occured during Dwapara or during sandhi period between Dwapara and Kali. MBH text has nothing to say on beginning of Kaliyuga in terms of specific year.

Nilesh ji,
I had speculated a long time ago that MB in its current form is perhaps a conflation of three different periods, one of which is the time span around 5700 BCE, perhaps 5600-5750 BCE. This was based on a geological consideration connecting Prabhaasa parva. I would be keenly waiting for your final conclusions!

Have you ever considered the possibility that some of the anomalous readings used by others to conclude 3000, or 1900 or 1400 dates come out of later events added on to the main event - perhaps as a repository of coded astro data? Or that wars in the north took place repeatedly - and that elements of later significant wars got entwined into the retelling of the original story?

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 17:42

brihaspati wrote: Nilesh ji,
I had speculated a long time ago that MB in its current form is perhaps a conflation of three different periods, one of which is the time span around 5700 BCE, perhaps 5600-5750 BCE. This was based on a geological consideration connecting Prabhaasa parva. I would be keenly waiting for your final conclusions!

Have you ever considered the possibility that some of the anomalous readings used by others to conclude 3000, or 1900 or 1400 dates come out of later events added on to the main event - perhaps as a repository of coded astro data? Or that wars in the north took place repeatedly - and that elements of later significant wars got entwined into the retelling of the original story?

Bji,
Would you elaborate here or in email (do you have my email? It is in the intro section of my book..RajeshA ji sent you ecopy, right?) your consideration for 5700 BC from Prabhas parva? Thank you.

Briefly.. 1400 BC is based on other considerations, considerations thought critical by those who proposed it... iron age, Rigveda time aka AIT BS, Genealogies and assumed ave. duration by these researchers for each generation..

1900 BC basd on matching Magha S 8 with winter solstice (median value while the range is from 1500 BC -to 2500 BC with few instances beyond on both sides.

3000 BC is based on traditional timing of Kaliyuga combined with MBH text (36 yeas) and Bhagavata (Krishna gone=kaliyuga began).

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 17:45

brihaspati wrote: Have you ever considered the possibility that some of the anomalous readings used by others to conclude 3000, or 1900 or 1400 dates come out of later events added on to the main event - perhaps as a repository of coded astro data? Or that wars in the north took place repeatedly - and that elements of later significant wars got entwined into the retelling of the original story?

There is another document, am sure you are aware 'Bharata Savitri'.. I have a copy of it if you would like to see....that appears to be a commentary (very short) on Mahabharta. It can be dated based on when it believes MBH war happended.

So people were always trying to figure out when it happened.. however many times their stance is justificatory for their assumed timeline rather than exploratory.. in the sence "let's figure out when it might have happened".

nakul · Post by **nakul** » 14 Sep 2012 17:47

Does any scientist believe that the Ramayana could have occured a million years ago? Scientist have dated Ram Setu to lakhs of years and we all know apes (vanara) roamed the Earth at that time. The current dating of 5000-10000 years does not fit these data points.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 18:00

brihaspati wrote: Nilesh ji,
I had speculated a long time ago that MB in its current form is perhaps a conflation of three different periods, one of which is the time span around 5700 BCE, perhaps 5600-5750 BCE. This was based on a geological consideration connecting Prabhaasa parva. I would be keenly waiting for your final conclusions!

I have elaborated this issue (conflation of various periods by various authors, etc) elsewhere (I think in OIT thread) but I don't know how to quickly search BRF and how to link.
Briefly.. I have read and re-read MBH text many times.. with different goal (astronomy observations, consistency, multiple versions of same MBH instances and many more) and have found no justification for mutiple layers.. besides what is obvious.. i.e. Vyasa- Vaishampaya- Sauti- and possibly documentation of this last effort. so max 4 editions.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 14 Sep 2012 18:14

nakul wrote:Does any scientist believe that the Ramayana could have occured a million years ago? Scientist have dated Ram Setu to lakhs of years and we all know apes (vanara) roamed the Earth at that time. The current dating of 5000-10000 years does not fit these data points.

Nakul ji,
If I may, with your permission, indulge in commenting on appropriate question.. scientifically speaking....
.
Right question to ask, a scientist or anyone is 'What makes one think that this could be true/or not ture?

I prefer the word researcher, since by 'scientist' we usually mean one who is methodical, rational etc.. while reality is that there is almost a necessity for one (researcher) to be irrational in making new discoveries.

In addition, since rationality, to a major extent is evaluated based on what we as society.. believe it to be true at any given point, while rationality is important in evaluating a theory, almost an impediment in generating or proposing a new theory. Now back to the subject..

Correct Q to ask is ..What makes 'one' (traditionalist, scientist, researcher.. whoever) think that Ramayana occured a million years ago?

Carl Sagan mentions his experience with UFO stuff, "People repeatedly ask me if I believe in UFOs. No one ever asks me what makes 'me' think that UFOs exist/or don't exist'

I am working on dating of ramayana right now and I plan to address the issue/question you asked above. Without giving too much, what I will say is that there is one reference in Ramayana that may lead one to that million year time frame.

The reference has nothign to do with duration of yugas.. however I presume you are aware that this million year figure comes from duration of 'daivi years of Kali yuga and Dwapara added together that takes us to >864K years.

My work is not taking me anywhere close to million year, not even by order of a magnitude or two!

Hope this helps..